ShankarAchArya answers the question: Who is Svetaketu, denoted by the word ‘thou’?
“It is he knows himself as, ‘I am Svetaketu, the son of Uddalaka’, and who after hearing the instruction, thinking over it and understanding it, asked his father for knowing what has not been heard of and thought of, and remains unknown, ‘Venerable sir, how is that instruction imparted?’ He who has become entitled to be the hearer, the thinker, and the knower, is none other than the supreme Deity himself, who, in the form of reflection has entered into the aggregate of body and organ made up of fire, water, and food, like a person in the mirror or like sun, etc., in water etc, for the sake of manifesting name and form.”
“Before hearing from his father, he did not know himself as completely distinct from the aggregate of body and organs, and Existence by nature and all-pervasive. Now, after having been enlightened by the father with the help of illustrations and reasonings that, ‘Thou art That’, he understood that statement of his father to mean, ‘I am Existence’ itself.” [emphasis added]. ChAndogya Upanishad with commentary of ShankarAchArya, Translated by Swami GambhirAnanda published by Advaita Ashrama).
ShankarAchArya addresses possible concerns to make the understanding firm.
Q1 What are the results of the knowledge, ‘Thou art That”. Answer: The notion that I am the doer and the enjoyer ceases. There is no duty to perform rites and rituals for material benefits because agent-ship and enjoyer-ship are contradictory to enlightenment. They cannot co-exist. Differences are eliminated. There is contentment.
Q2 Does the sentence, ‘Thou art That’ not convey the idea of superimposition of Existence on the object implied by the word ‘Thou’? For example, the idea of Brahman is enjoined on the sun, mind, etc or image of Vishnu is looked upon as Vishnu.
Answer: It is not so. In the examples, Brahman or Vishnu is thought as sun or the image. The word ‘as’ implies that sun and image are different from Brahman, but they are used as support in meditation. In ‘Thou art That’, there is (absolute) identity of Brahman (That) and Svetaketu (Thou).
Q3 Is the statement, ‘Thou art That’ not like the statement, ‘You are a lion possessed of qualities of prowess etc?
Answer: The instruction, ‘Thou art That’ is not a metaphor whereas ‘You are a lion etc’ is a metaphor. A metaphor is not absolute. Moreover, Existence is attribute free and there is any comparison is ruled out. It is not a case of adoration because Svetaketu is not meant to be adored. Existence cannot be praised by enjoining that It is Svetaketu as a king is not praised by saying that he is a servant. Existence is all-pervasive. Therefore, by saying ‘Thou art That’, Existence is not confined to a limited space, just as ruler of a country is not said as a ruler of a village. Thus, there is no other meaning other than the identity of Existence and the Self.
Q4 Does the sentence, ‘Thou art That’ not convey the idea of performance of duty?
Answer: It is not so. If the idea is to convey a duty, there would not have been elaborate method of teaching requiring a teacher and leading to liberation. A teacher belonging to a lineage alone can interpret and teach the scriptures correctly. Study of scriptures by oneself is not approved of.
Q5 If Self is Existence, why should not a person know it?
Answer: Birth of a jIva is due to Self- ignorance. A person does not have the idea that he as an individual soul is distinct from body and he is not a doer and an enjoyer. When the knowledge, ‘Thou art That’, dawns there is no rebirth.
Contd Part 7